Back in 2006, I published my first paper in climate science. That paper, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response, predicted a temperature decline of 1.5°C over Solar Cycle 24. The model has become a little more refined since then, and further updated by the papers of Jan-Erik Solheim, Ole Humlum and Kjell Stordahl. Given that Solar Cycle 23 was three years longer than Solar Cycle 22, the average temperature of Armagh in Northern Ireland and the CET is modelled to be 1.4°C colder over Solar Cycle 24 than it was over Solar Cycle 23. The model is based on the theory of Friis-Christensen and Lassen in their 1991 paper.

We are now four and a half years into Solar Cycle 24. So how is the prediction holding up? That is shown in Figure 1 following:

Figure 1: CET Average Temperatures 1990 – 2025

Over Solar Cycle 23 the average temperature of the CET was 10.4°C so the model predicts that the average over Solar Cycle 24 will be 9.0°C. For the first four years of Solar Cycle 24, it has averaged 9.8°C. For the prediction to hold from here, the average temperature over the remainder of the cycle will have to be 8.7°C. The average temperature of 2010 was 8.8°C – only 0.1°C more than what is needed from here. With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag.

Thanks to Richard Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram we can also predict average temperature over Solar Cycle 25. Interpreting that diagram, Solar Cycle 24 will be at least 16 years long. In turn, that means that the CET over Solar Cycle 25 will be a further 1.4°C cooler than the average over Solar Cycle 24. The following graph shows what that looks like:

Figure 2: CET Average Temperatures 1960 – 2037

The CET record is now 354 years long. Has something like that happened before? Yes it has. Figure 3 following shows the CET record from 1659 and puts our Solar Cycle 24 and 25 predictions in that context:

Figure 3: CET Average Temperature 1659 – 2037

Some individual years have had averages colder than our Solar Cycle 25 prediction. The eleven years centred on 1695 had an average temperature of 8.1°C. This cold period killed off 30% of the population of Finland. The cold period centered on 1740 affected Ireland badly, killing several hundred thousand people – 20% of the then population. The better known potato famine was one hundred years later. There was a major volcanic eruption in 1739, Tarumai in Japan, that would have contributed to the cooling over 1740. Volcanic effects last only a couple of years though. There seems to have been a regime change with temperatures after 1740 about 1.0°C colder than the years before it. This suggests a solar origin. In fact the high temperatures up to 1740 look similar to the high temperatures of the late 20th century.

Perhaps a solar regime change is in train once again. Livingstone and Penn forecast a maximum amplitude for Solar Cycle 25 of 7 which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years. Figure 4 shows what that will look like:

Figure 4: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040

Despite what is happening to their climate, the UK is persisting with a project to convert their largest coal-fired power station, Drax in North Yorkshire, to burning woodchips to be imported from the United States. This is an attempt to placate the gods of climate at a capital cost for the conversion of £700 million ($1,070 million). This is laughable and very tragic at the same time. The whole circus will end in tears.

Sounds like the UK energy secretary, Mr Davey thinks it is wrong to tell the truth to the Uk public about the coming cold weather . Even the Met Ofiice, a branch of his own government is saying there will be no warming for at least the next 5 years despite the rising co2 levels .

Solar sunspot activity is at the lowest level since 1900. During the decades of 1880, 1890 and 1900 the average sunspot numbers [NSO] were 45.2, 55.1 and 42.6. During 2000 decade they were 49.6. During the last 10 years the average sunspot number was 29.3. When the average solar level drops to about 40-50, cooler weather sets in. Although the exact mechanism is not yet understood, low solar sunspot numbers seem to correlate with low global surface temperatures especially when ocean and solar cycles are both in sync during declining or rising phases. Low solar cycles typically come in threes, so it is possible that low sunspot number may exist for several decades into the future .Typically these longer solar minimums are characterized by a long solar cycle followed by three low level sunspot cycles resulting in some 45 years of lower sunspot activity, like 1872 – 1917 and again 1790-1836. There are 11, 22, 70-80, 200 year and even longer solar cycles .
Current UK temperature trend is consistent with past similar solar cycle patterns as David points out

Projections of weak solar maxima for solar cycles 24 and 25 are correlated with
the terrestrial climate response to solar cycles over the last three hundred years,
derived from a review of the literature. Based on solar maxima of approximately
50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to
2020, equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum. To provide a baseline for
projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25, data from five
rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged and
smoothed. The profile indicates that temperatures remain below the average over
the first half of the twentieth century

So,

A. his prediction was based on solar maximum being 50. Its greater than that

B. His prediction was for global.

Now, all you folks who complain that thousands of stations are not good enough?

“To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar
cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to
2003 was averaged and smoothed. That is shown in Figure 3. Rural stations were
chosen so as to eliminate the possibility of contamination by the urban heat island
effect. The use of a 98 year long data set precludes the possibility of the data being
affected by short term local conditions. The smoothed average annual temperature of
the Hawkinsville (32.3N, 83.5W), Glennville (31.3N, 89.1W), Calhoun Research
Station (32.5N, 92.3W), Highlands (35.0N, 82.3W) and Talbotton (32.7N, 84.5W)
stations is representative of the US temperature profile away from the urban heat
island effect over the last 100 years (Data source: NASA GISS)”

Notice the lack of a representative sample of latitude, longitude, altitude, and distance from coast.

It was 63 degrees here in Texas when I got up this morning, and the day is beautiful. For a Texas June, that’s unreal, but very welcome! As things cool down, the weather down here is getting better and better. Texas just gets to be a nicer place to be every day!

Not really much in favor of crystal balls that predict things with too fine a point on it. What I would accept is something along the lines of “conditions are set for temperatures to fall” but exactly how much they fall will depend on external variable factors. These factors include: the cosmic ray density of the space through which the solar system is passing, volcanic activity on Earth during the period, other things that change the levels of particulates in the air including pollution, fires, etc.

Also, I am curious if anyone ever studied the impact of the Kuwait oil well fires when Saddam Hussein ordered the oil wells there set fire. That should have dumped a huge load of black carbon into the atmosphere over a short period of time.

When the average solar level drops to about 40-50, cooler weather sets in. Although the exact mechanism is not yet understood, low solar sunspot numbers seem to correlate with low global surface temperatures…

What are some of the leading hypotheses? It’s not reduced electromagnetic radiation output from the sun, right? Is it cloud formation? Other ideas?

As has been pointed out up thread, the original paper (and therefore it’s predictions) apparently had some significant weaknesses (like not using CET then as now) which the poster says have been improved in unspecified ways. But it made testable predictions, as did the AR4 GCM ensemble. So far it is doing better than the IPCC. As yet that says nothing. Time will tell.
BUT at least this post has a plausible natural variability explanation in figure 4, which if accurate data (I haven’t bothered to double check, which one should always do in climate research–remember Mann and Marcott) even explains the two periods of temperature rise in the 20th century with a mid century pause. If the underlying theory predicting future solar cycle intensity holds, then to some degree the posts temperature prediction likely will also. That would be where to investigate plausibility.
By comparison, the GCMs have a proven and well documented moist bias, resulting in overstating both positive water vapor feedback and cloud feedback and therefore sensitivity. That moist bias is inherent in GCM inability at present grid scales to adequately model tropical convection (thunderstorms, and Lindzens adaptive iris hypothesis). So the temperature records of the past 12-15 years have already falsified them almost to the undeniable satisfaction of their most ardent AGW proponents.
This post may not be right either, but it is provably already better than the IPCC both in explanation and near term prediction.
Thanks for hosting such an interesting ‘paper’ Anthony.

A better joke comes from the IPCC who also claims global warming even though the globe hasn’t warmed (warming has been regional), and hasn’t necessarily warmed over a 24-hour day, for all or even most days of the year, nor evenly along decadal time periods. A better joke came from James Hansen who believes NYC will be under meters of sea water. Lewendowsky is quite the jokester as is Cook at SkS who likes to spin up really good tales.

I think it is not a bad prediction for David to claim global changes when the driver is the sun as that tends to affect all things and all places better than say El Niño/La Niña events or volcanoes. I’ll bet Archibald will be shown to be more accurate than James Hansen.

The cool down of global temperatures has occurred since the PDO went negative. I like to use 2005 as the date as that was ENSO neutral. So, there’s no need to invoke the sun as there’s a perfectly good mechanism right here on Earth. Given the previous swings we should see about a 1C drop in global temps with about .1C already in place. You can see temps peaking and then going down during the 16+ years of flat temperatures overall.

Looking at Figure 3, it is tough to identify anything like a “Dalton Minimum”

Maybe there is something you can tie to the Dalton if you just consider the lows. Consider the low spikes from 1780 to 1879. Now consider that only about 1/5 of these 100 years are unusually cold.

This punctuated cold might tie into legend well. What if the “little ice age” isn’t a period of broadly lower average temperatures as it is an average period punctuated with early and harsh winters intersperced with mild winters. The winters where the Themes freezes are remembered more than the ones where it doesn’t. The crop failures are remembered more than the average crops. These measures are non-linear with respect to temperature.

Have to remember that Figure 3 is still only yearly averages. The insight into the “Little Ice Age” might need to be seen at daily lows that kill crops and the early snows.

Thank you very much Mr. David Archibald for that excellent essay. It concisely – and graphically – puts the last 30 years of ‘climate change’ into a clear historical perspective, easily understood by the layman.

I think you did a great job there and I may just ‘publish’ your essay on my work’s coffee room pinboard (with attribution of course). Thanks.

The UK Parliament is, right now, discussing the complete elimination of anything other than renewable and nuclear for electricity generation by 2030. This despite announcements that UK shale gas reserves are magnitudes greater than expected. The vote will almost certainly go against the government’s wish not to commit to such nonsense at this stage: prominent feeders at the trough of (green) grants are calling for the anti carbon vote. (Odd, given the recent lobbying scandal here!)

Cooling does seem to be in the cards, possibly even in the LIA range. Sadly, children just aren’t going to know what skating on the river Thames is, due to faster river flow due to embankments built along its side.

TomB says:
June 3, 2013 at 10:12 am
If I understand Graph 3 correctly, it looks like you’re also predicting another Maunder Minimum during Cycle 25?

At this point one can’t predict with any skill past the next cycle and even that skill is limited. Witness the predictions for cycle 24 during cycle 23. Whether it will turn out to be more of a Dalton minimum with two weak cycles or more of a Maunder minimum with more, remains to be seen.

Although I agree in principle with what you are doing here, I consider the evidence to be for a Dalton, not a Maunder. The pattern to now does not support a radical collapse for 25. I don’t understand where you get that. Even were a Maunder to happen, we would need another step down from the apparent sunspot number of around 65.

Plus, the decrease in temperature as noted for specific land stations is not the same as for the world as a whole.

I see a drop to perhaps 1975 from today, based on sunspot activity. Less than that needs some other factor we are not seeing yet. In order to get to 1910 we would have to start at a lower level than today; to get to 1820 we would have to similarly be already as cold as it was in 1800.

I don’t understand your persistence in the large numbers for the world when your references are from land stations that are near multiples of the world.

Correlations with historic sunspot numbers are a bit awkward as our ability to count them has gone up in recent decades. I would like to know if the “Wolff number” used here takes this into account. I remember our good Dr Svalgaard is always pointing out that we have not really been in a “grand maximum” recently and uses this to argue with our good Vukcevic that we can’t ‘blame’ recent warming on the sun.

However, I really don’t see how anyone can dispute the correlation between sun spot cycles and global temperatures over a pretty decent number of years no, so there does appear to be something to look at. Whether sunspots themselves, or the fact that numbers are a reflection of magnetic activity, have anything to do with climate is a good avenue for study and Svensmark at least provided a testable theory – which has not been been refuted by the CERN studies.

David Archibald has gone out an limb with a prediction in a testable time-frame and while he might be stretching a bit now to claim success, he has done better than some other forecasts (or whatever the heck we are supposed to call the IPCC crud). This doesn’t say anything about a mechanism, except that it has bugger all to do with mankind’s impact on some trace gases in the atmosphere.

Is this the whole story? Unlikely, but anyone who just opens their eyes to the data pretty much has to admit that there is a correlation here between solar activity and out temperature such that a good portion of climate change is due to something well beyond mankind’s control. So, with a chunk of the 0.7 (or so) increase since 1900 not due to us anyway, where does that leave climate sensitivity to CO2 levels?

I predict the UK will be running power stations on shale gas not too far into the future.
*****
Its a pity we couldn’t run them on all the the hot air & bullshit coming out of the Climate Change Committe Quango & C02 taxing Govt

I am sorry but it looks to be a mess to me. The CET to solar there is only a casual correlation at best. If it was better correlated then the high solar cycles of the mid 20th century would show a warming and it doesn’t. The year without a summer would be there and it shows very little cooling during that time and we know it to be world wide. The solar indices better match PDO than it does the CET. It is actually a good match but the problem is we only have good data for a few PDO cycles and the two may match simply because they are both on a decade type cycle. If you torture the data some more you might get a better result.

JIM ARDNT
“I am sorry but it looks to be a mess to me. The CET to solar there is only a casual correlation at best. If it was better correlated then the high solar cycles of the mid 20th century would show a warming and it doesn’t”

Jim
Take a look at the graph prepared by tonyb for CET. The various solar minimums and temperature troughs are quite evident . Also if you plot decadal sunspt numbers , decadal global ocean SST and decadal global temperatures from 1880- 2000 you will note that except for a short period in the 1950-1960, these all moved in unison.. In the peak solar period 1957, the ocean cycle was in the cool mode and thus reduced the extra solar warming effect .One needs to look at this on decadal basis as there are various lag factors and ocean currents involved . The extended cooling periods during these solar minimims results from the extended periods of low solar activity.
Typically these longer solar minimums are characterized by a long solar cycle followed by three low level sunspot cycles resulting in some 45 years of lower sunspot activity, like 1872 – 1917 and again 1790-1836.

Here in our neck of the woods (Kansas City) we just finished the fourth coolest spring on record. Not that NWS has noted it yet, of course. And the first few days of June are cool too. Set a low temp record this morning in fact.

herkimer
“Also if you plot decadal sunspt numbers , decadal global ocean SST and decadal global temperatures from 1880- 2000 you will note that except for a short period in the 1950-1960, these all moved in unison..”
Yes, because you have decade cycles (i.e. solar cycle, AMO and PDO) and these may only be in-sync and does not mean one is caused by the other. You need to show how this happens and the mechanism. I am a solar advocate but we can’t just say so without a mechanism. just saying.

“the prediction is in the bag“. That’s an absurd statement. The situation is that the prediction is, so far, badly wrong, but there are grounds for thinking that there is still a possibility that it may eventually prove to be correct.

Mardler said “The UK Parliament is, right now, discussing the complete elimination of anything other than renewable and nuclear for electricity generation by 2030.”

Temperatures haven’t risen for over 16 years and yet the members of the UK idiot and moronic fool club are debating whether to destroy the UK economy in order to achieve an unmeasurable difference in global temperatures. Oh joy.

That may well destroy whatever vestiges of industry the UK has left, and if too great a reliance on wind takes hold may also start to kill off the UK service industries and financial sector as they relocate to countries that provide a stable electricity supply.

Though ironically it may work out to be accidentally a good thing, since as wind can’t deliver, then they’d be forced to build more nuclear, which could well prove useful if temperatures fall to 2030 as may prove to be the case. With some fracking thrown in for good measure.

There have only been a few forecasters who were able to state that the world was heading toward global cooling, and that global warming is caused by the condition of the Sun.

The great majority of climate scientists bought hook, line and sinker into the ‘man-made global warming’ scam, along with governments, the complicit mainstream media, Internet climate hacks and tens of millions of people who don’t know even known the basics of how the Earth’s climate actually functions.

The Earth can never become a greenhouse. Moreover, fewer seem to know that carbon dioxide is a thermostat gas that ‘cools.’ The fact that the IPCC< and it's so-called '97% of all climate scientists' believed that the global warming was caused by man tells you everything you need to know about their expertise as forecasters. Most of the major climate centers do not and cannot forecast the weather, nor the climate. And they have proven that fact repeatedly.

Those who get caught up in 'predictions' often do not know the first thing about the systems applied to 'predict' while many meteorologists play the 5-10 forecast as the height of the science of forecasting; while as an astrometeorologist I forecast over months, years and decades.

But time marches on, and the world comes closer to a new climate reality that's been forecasted – and that is global cooling.

All the hyperbole, climate science careerism, ideology and sarcasm will not alter the laws of physics that determine our planet's climate. We are heading toward a new neo-boreal climate era, and nothing will stop it except the condition of the Sun.

These are the years to prepare for global cooling. Lots will change according to my forecast, so it's best to just get on with it. The 'warmists,' as they are called, are already feeling the 'chill' in the air by means of the cold, wet spring and increasing signs of global cooling.

While many still sit on the fence, waiting for their 'predictions' to come true, what is happening is that the global cooling I forecasted to come by astronomic means, years ago, is now closer to us and preparations have to be made for what will be 36 years of global cooling, according to my forecast.

This punctuated cold might tie into legend well. What if the “little ice age” isn’t a period of broadly lower average temperatures as it is an average period punctuated with early and harsh winters intersperced with mild winters.

The Little Ice Age shows up in Autumn and Winter temperatures, not in Spring and Summer temperatures. Which is clearly a reduced clouds effect. Interestingly, we see a very similar change over the last 15 years. I’m neutral on whether this is linked to the solar cycle.

“The Little Ice Age shows up in Autumn and Winter temperatures, not in Spring and Summer temperatures. Which is clearly a reduced clouds effect. Interestingly, we see a very similar change over the last 15 years. I’m neutral on whether this is linked to the solar cycle.”

Mardler says:
June 3, 2013 at 9:45 am
////////////////////////////
The Met Office state:
“…This March has been the coldest since 1962 in the UK in the national record dating back to 1910…As well as being very cold, March has also been very snowy and joins 2006, 2001, 1995, 1987, 1979, 1970 and 1962 as years when March saw some significant snowfall. ”

We now know that Spring in the UK has been the coldest for over a 100 years. It is interesting to note that it appears that 4 of the smowiest Marchs 9including 2013) have occurred since 1995, and 6 since claims of AGW took off in the late 1970s. from that data, it does not appear that snows in the UK are or will be things of the past, and that ‘our’ children will not know what snow is.

There appears to be a trend developing for snowier winters. CET shows that winter temperatures this century (ie., as fromm 2000) have fallen by almost 1.5degC. That is much more than the last century warming.

Governments and Climate Scientists have to start appreciating that climate is regional and impacts of climate change 9whatever be the cause0 are felt locally, not globally. Whatever, the Uk government may think about global warming and what steps 9if any) should be taken to address such issue, the UK government’s paramount concern should be to consider and address what is happening to the UK. If the present trend for decling temperatures (especially winter temperatures) in the UK continues then the government needs to address the challenges that will need to be taken to keep the country moving (public transport, buses, trains, air ports open, roads properly gritted etc) and the increased demands that will be placed on energy (this March the UK almost run out of gas reserves and was only about 6 hours away from rationing heavy industrial users). If energy can not meet demand this will have a big impact on needlessly premature winter mortality rates, and industrial output 9the last thing a struggling economy needs). Further, it needs to ensure that energy is affordable since with increased energy usage during winter and spring months, the average citizen will have to fork out much more money on energy just simply because they are using more. The number of people in fuel poverty will increase dramatically not simply because of rising energy costs, but simply because they are using more because of the cold.

As regards the drive for green energy, the UK needs to consider carefully the performance of windfarms during the winter and spring. If ever increasing reliance is being placed on that form of energy production, the UK government needs to consider how effective it is at coping with demands during peak usage. The past experience of the last few years would suggest that it is worfully inadequate at meeting any significant demand during cold winters when a blocking high is sitting over or near the UK.

There are interesting times lying ahead for the UK but politicians appear oblivious to this near since they are so blinded by the spin of global warming, and fail to look locally.

Also, I am curious if anyone ever studied the impact of the Kuwait oil well fires when Saddam Hussein ordered the oil wells there set fire. That should have dumped a huge load of black carbon into the atmosphere over a short period of time.

Perhaps it was only coincidence, but that same year the Iceman was discovered.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi
All of this took place in 1991. The ice just happen to melt enough to expose him the same year all that soot was put up in the atmosphere by the oil fires. A lot would depend on where the wind patterns moved the soot.

It was 63 degrees here in Texas when I got up this morning, and the day is beautiful. For a Texas June, that’s unreal….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tell me about it.

It is 8am here in mid North Carolina and it is 64F. We have yet to see a day above ninety degrees. Ten years ago in 2004, we had 6 days over 90F in April and 17 days in May with two days over 98F. It was only a week or two ago that farmers started to plant there fields.

I feel like I am back in New England!

This cool weather could have some nasty repercussions later this year.

…The 2013 planting season has been downright wacky. The calendar has flipped to May, but snow, freeze warnings and excessive rain broke weather records in many areas.

These rare weather occurrences kept many planters parked across the country. As of April 28, USDA estimates only 5% of the U.S. corn crop is planted. The five-year average for this time is 31%. Last year, nearly half of the corn crop had been planted…

For the coming week, USDA will not only release its weekly planting progress report, on Friday, May 10 it will release this month’s monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates and Crop Production reports…. USDA has a history of lowering yield expectations if the corn crop is not 40% planted by their May reports….

I did a round-up of planting news in the first week of May here. (Ground temperature for corn planting in NC was STILL not warm enough in my area that first week of May.)

Yes, the article stands on its own. Interestingly you are simply ad homing it. Since you won’t tell us why it is just junk I need your prediction to have something to go on. Or is this something else you will not provide meaning you actually have nothing worthwhile to say. Don’t forget many of us do not have your lofty level of education, experience, and abilities.

Bruce Cobb says:
June 4, 2013 at 4:33 am“This is junk”
Of course. Nothing to do with the fact that it threatens your line of work either.
Quite the contrary. If it were not junk, it would show the importance of solar research and attract more welcome funding.

I do not understand the skepticism concerning the solar magnetic cycle modulation of climate. There are nine (9) cyclic warming and cooling periods during the current interglacial period (the Holocene) and there are a further 14 more warming and cooling periods in the glacial period. (23 in total that can be tracked and the warming and cooling periods correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.) There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes are the cause of the cyclic climate change (warm periods followed by cooling periods and the abrupt climate events).

To be fair the naysayers, the recent abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle inhibited the GCR mechanism that modulates planetary cloud cover. As the planet has started to cool, the GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover that modulates low level clouds and high level clouds has resumed.

The regions of the planet that warmed in the 20th century are the same regions of the planet that warmed during the Medieval Warm period. As many are aware the pattern of 20th century warming (primarily high northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere excluding the Antarctic ice sheet) does not match the pattern predicted by the AGW hypothesis or the IPCC models.
It appears the majority of the 20th century warming was not caused by the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. An observation to support that assertion (pattern recognition and reversibility) is the recent cooling and wet weather is in the same regions that experienced the Little Ice age.

There is now record sea ice in the Antarctic and there is cooling in the high Arctic.
The lifetime of sunspots on the surface of the sun is becoming less as sunspots become pores. It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year which is anomalous. If the sun becomes spotless there will be another NASA solar update.

The IPCC can explain a lack of warming with heat hiding in the ocean. It is not possible to hide cooling. Significant planetary cooling will require an explanation. No doubt there will be scallywags that assert the planetary cooling must be due to the abrupt change to the sun.

The tone of the climate change discussions will change if there is significant cooling of the planet that coincides with an abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle.

Comment: Scallywag
1. Informal a scamp; rascal
2. (Historical Terms) (after the US Civil War) a White Southerner who supported the Republican Party and its policy of Black emancipation. Scallywags were viewed as traitors by their fellow Southerners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Europe/North America
The Little Ice Age brought colder winters to parts of Europe and North America. … …Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.[21] The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished (by the early 15th century), as crops failed and livestock …. …. Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier … ….Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]

Antarctic
Kreutz et al. (1997) compared results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) and suggested a synchronous global Little Ice Age.[46] An ocean sediment core from the eastern Bransfield Basin in the Antarctic Peninsula shows centennial events that the authors link to the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[47] The authors note “other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear.”

(Why is there a sudden increase in Antarctic sea ice?)

Australia
There is limited evidence about conditions in Australia, though lake records in Victoria suggest that conditions, at least in the south of the state, were wet and/or unusually cool. In the north of the continent, the limited evidence suggests fairly dry conditions, while coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef show similar rainfall as today but with less variability. A study that analyzed isotopes in Great Barrier Reef corals suggested that increased water vapor transport from southern tropical oceans to the poles contributed to the LIA.[53] Borehole reconstructions from Australia suggest that, over the last 500 years, the 17th century was the coldest in that continent,…http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=876722

lsvalgaard says:
June 4, 2013 at 5:34 amQuite the contrary. If it were not junk, it would show the importance of solar research and attract more welcome funding.
Bzzzzzt!
You wish. In the highly-politicized and even corrupt realm of climate “science”, that isn’t how funding works.
Try again.

William Astley said ” It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year which is anomalous.”I thought that the last brief from the pen of Livingston, Penn & Svalgaard was for a spotless sun at about 2020.

Leif, I think, may be of the opinion that cooling might occur over the coming years but will have something to do with Jupiter and not the sun. Should cooling show its hand as we approach 2020 then hopefully Leif will enlighten us as to the Jupiter link at that time, though I hope for an illuminating post from him here on the subject rather sooner, 7 years is a long time to wait at my age.

J Martin says: June 4, 2013 at 10:19 am
Re Jupiter
a) Was referring to the Milankovic cycles.
b) Was sarcastic, since there are many ‘pseudo-scientists’ who consider that Jupiter’s gravity etc., controls solar activity.

I’m not sure that a) or b) are the case. I’m sure that Leif knows to use the /sarc tag, and if I recall correctly he didn’t. Anyway if was being sarcastic then I will be disappointed as I thought a post from Leif to do with planets other than the sun would have been interesting.

Not convinced about Milankovic, I reckon it sets the background conditions or potential, but there are so many other factors, that actual timing, rate, extent etc are effectively unpredictable, unfortunately, though in some ways, timing, rate, extent etc are or should be the Holy Grail of climate science.

“With solar maximum of Solar Cycle 24 now past us, the prediction is in the bag…
…Thanks to Richard Altrock’s green corona emissions diagram we can also predict average temperature over Solar Cycle 25. Interpreting that diagram, Solar Cycle 24 will be at least 16 years long.”

I’ll not hold my breath to see the “at least 16 years long” solar cycle…

I must agree with Leif this is junk and I wonder why Archibald didn’t even bother to see the updated Altrock’s green corona diagram he was pointed to already some months ago to see that his extraordinary length of the SC24 “prediction” is quite baseless.

The Suns activities through time modulated via the tidal forces of planets are an interesting thought. But as we know are not set as fact.
As yet we don’t know enough when it comes to stars with or without such effects.
I have once read on a site which played with this theory; one young guy took the Solar activity record and broke it down with DSP, reducing it to a series of resonances. The result was very compelling because they reasonably matched most of the major planets.

tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
June 4, 2013 at 11:37 am
Not holding your breath to see an at least 16 year long cycle? Well, some lead and others follow. Have a look at slide 13 on this presentation:https://www2.hao.ucar.edu/sites/default/…/Synoptic-Observations_LS.ppt..

I recall this question was in the discussion here already months ago and if I remember it well after pointed to the updated 2012 diagram it led back to “constant as polar cepheid” arguments of pointing back to the Altrock’s 2010 paper, where I’m somehow unable to find any base for an “at least 16 years long” SC24 -at least beyond leisurely put “peculiar oracle on the mountain” sort of arguments.
I’m not an English native, but given the past experience wouldn’t you think that rather than peculiar a more apposite characteristic for an “at least 16 years long” solar cycle would be extraordinary, outstanding, unprecedented or something like that?
Even the longest SC4 Usoskin et al prolong to (almost) 16 years and half in two, so I wonder if this is another such clear as sun piece of science feat and see some more from the oraculum to enrich my occult stories lower right corner highlighted in orange repertoir. Unfortunately while I would like to follow the leaders to the holy mountain. What if something is there, after all. But somehow the broken blink after click leads me to a blind rabbit hole for now.

Interesting times…common sense says cooling or at least some type of change. 0.07 for May is headed lower. It appears that we peaked at +0.2 since 1979 and will be headed down in global temp. I would say that the Global warming people are going to appear foolish 5 years from now, they appear foolish to me already. I am suggesting a real learning period for Leif.

tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:46 am
By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long. Now let’s go back a couple of years to that conference in Sunspot, New Mexico. This is a press release on it:http://earthsky.org/space/major-drop-in-solar-activity-ahead-scientists-say
Selfless solar scientists spend their lives living in the desert the better to observe solar activity. Let’s get a couple of quotes of what they said at that conference:
“This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.” and “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

These eminent scientists have raised the possibility that there will be no Solar Cycle 25 at all. It would be good to know how things have progressed for the last two years.

David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pm“By now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.”
He asks, not states it as fact, but then, using the updated 2012 chart:
lsvalgaard says (here):
March 5, 2013 at 7:16 pm“When updating the Figure with later data it is evident that there is no change in slope of the butterfly-wings of the green corona, so there is no justification for extrapolating to a very long cycle 24”: http://www.leif.org/research/Green-Corona-Altrock-Waldmeier.png
And what was your response to the updated green corona chart he pointed to?
David Archibald says:
March 5, 2013 at 11:22 pm“Draw all the lines you like, it won’t make any difference. Let’s consult the oracle on the mountain, the mountain in question being Sacramento Peak. In his own words from:http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2401“
Which in my opinion means complete ignoring of the updated 2012 chart and instead pointing back to the Altrock’s 2010 paper with the 2009 chart and looks to me being more a fascination with the (past) oracle on the mountain than a serious solar activity prediction bussiness.

William Astley says:
June 4, 2013 at 6:54 amThere is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes are the cause of the cyclic climate change (warm periods followed by cooling periods and the abrupt climate events).
No, there is not.

To be fair the naysayers, the recent abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle inhibited the GCR mechanism that modulates planetary cloud cover.
This is nonsense.

If the sun becomes spotless there will be another NASA solar update.
No, there will not. I am on the prediction panel.

Bruce Cobb says:
June 4, 2013 at 6:55 amIn the highly-politicized and even corrupt realm of climate “science”, that isn’t how funding works.
But that is how it works for funding of solar research.

David Archibald says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:06 pmWell, some lead and others follow.

kuhnkat says:
June 5, 2013 at 8:35 amSince you won’t tell us why it is just junk I need your prediction to have something to go on.
You have my professional opinion to go on.We also do not have your need to support the Consensus.
What is your evidence that I support any consensus whatsoever?

David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pmBy now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.
Never said that. And from 2009 to 2021 is not 17 years, but 12.

And that professional opinion is based on more fundamental observational data than what Archibald is using. Yes I understand that. What you apparently won’t admit is that your better observations still tell us NOTHING about the actual drivers of the solar cycles. YOUR Professional Opinion MAY be Better than his, but, it is still somewhat lacking as your OPINION is ALSO based on correlation of your limited observations.

David Archibald says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:42 pmBy now you would have seen that Dr Svalgaard has also written that Solar Cycle 24 could be 17 years long.
You misinterpret Altrock’s idea of the ‘extended’ solar cycle which is that cycles are not 11 years long, but 17 and they overlap such as to make the time between minima [or maxima] 11 years. That is: Every new cycle begins at the maximum of the previous cycle.

The bloodstream of politics is constituted by perceived good intent, “We/I can and must do something about this particular problem!”. (Nothing is better for any political figure than saving the world.) So, while level-headed fact reveals a dynamic earth which operates independently from the effects of human population, just as it has for the previous thousand million years, governments will continue to “fix the man-made climate problem” for the reasonably large pricetag of money and authority, as needed.

As cooling (or lack of warming) becomes more apparent to the general population, a different problem of worldwide significance will be required. Overpopulation and disease have always had some success. Terrorism threats and nuclear catastrophe certainly have gained respect in the need for governmental control. Perhaps impending asteroid/comet impact, solar flares/CMEs, or cosmic rays, especially following the recent Russian meteorite experience, could provide the next worldwide problem. A second space event in the near future would be quite handy for that.

For now, however, there is still wriggle left in the climate change dragon.

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:36 pmAnd that professional opinion is based on more fundamental observational data than what Archibald is using.
No. The problem with D.A. is not the data but the incorrect use of same as several commenters have already pointed out.

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 12:54 pmOnly the fact that you are regularly defending consensus physics
You are not really understanding science. When evidence for it becomes overwhelming most physicists will accept a theory; that is called ‘general acceptance’ or ‘current paradigm’ or ‘standard model’. This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on.and have at least once ad homed a group based on confused or incomplete information about them
If a group of people issue confused information about themselves they run the risk of criticism. Many people do not understand the difference between saying that somebody’s idea is junk and that somebody is a jerk. Only the latter is ad-hom. I hope this helps in clarifying your mind about this.

“When evidence for it becomes overwhelming most physicists will accept a theory; that is called ‘general acceptance’ or ‘current paradigm’ or ‘standard model’. This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on.”

kuhnkat says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:18 pm“This is what our advanced technological civilization is based on”
Yes, this is the MYTHOLOGY of the Consensus.
That you are not sitting in a cave banging stones together, but are using a computer run by electricity is a result of such ‘mythology’.
Consensus is what works. I do not ‘support’ consensus, I [and you] use it every day. Now, beware of people who claim they support a consensus, e.g. climate skeptics that are united in their consensus in general or in some of their specific ones, like ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. A self-proclaimed ‘consensus’ should not be confused with a ‘generally accepted standard model’.